60 Minutes tonight

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, liberals want to legislate for the social good, and they often view gambling as something that damages this aspect of our society.

[/ QUOTE ]


Indeed...and a good point.

A friend of my Dad's who knows nothing about internet-gambling or the psuedo-illegality of it was asking me some questions about it.
This person is a Republican (as is my Dad) and when I mentioned that there is a senator from Arizona who has had several failed attempts to legislate/prohibit internet-gambling the immediate assumption by this person was that the senator must be a democrat for exactly the reasons Mason outlines.

I explained that this senator (and many others who are in the anti-internet-gambling-agenda camp) are Republicans and that it is partly due to a moral objection to gambling in general.


I'm really not sure if our chances would be much better with a democrat controlled congress or a democrat in the White House.
I find it unlikely that politicians would take the risk of officially making some form of gambling perfectly legal all across the country.


They tried pushing for it in North Dakota...but that's an entirely different animal than politicians from all 50 states trying to move forward on a practice that so many Americans still find to be morally objectionable.

[sweetjazz]

Florida legalized poker in some form, but in such a way that they can't spread a limit game higher than $1/$2. It makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of poker players, but I guess that there was some feeling that this was the highest amount that people should be allowed to wager.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, liberals want to legislate for the social good, and they often view gambling as something that damages this aspect of our society.

[/ QUOTE ]


Indeed...and a good point.

A friend of my Dad's who knows nothing about internet-gambling or the psuedo-illegality of it was asking me some questions about it.
This person is a Republican (as is my Dad) and when I mentioned that there is a senator from Arizona who has had several failed attempts to legislate/prohibit internet-gambling the immediate assumption by this person was that the senator must be a democrat for exactly the reasons Mason outlines.

I explained that this senator (and many others who are in the anti-internet-gambling-agenda camp) are Republicans and that it is partly due to a moral objection to gambling in general.


I'm really not sure if our chances would be much better with a democrat controlled congress or a democrat in the White House.
I find it unlikely that politicians would take the risk of officially making some form of gambling perfectly legal all across the country.


They tried pushing for it in North Dakota...but that's an entirely different animal than politicians from all 50 states trying to move forward on a practice that so many Americans still find to be morally objectionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

We dont need politicians to make online gambling legal becasue it is already legal for all intents and purposes. The DOJ's official position is that they will prosecute gambling operators but not individual gamblers, which means there is no danger of anything happening because all online sites are overseas. And there are still serious doubts over whether the Wire Act of 1961 could even be applied to online gambling.

But anyway, I'd be willing to bet a lot that if legislation against online gambling is ever passed, Republicans will be the ones leading the charge.

[ QUOTE ]
Florida legalized poker in some form, but in such a way that they can't spread a limit game higher than $1/$2. It makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of poker players, but I guess that there was some feeling that this was the highest amount that people should be allowed to wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missouri has something similar to that. State law forbids people from losing more than $500 during any two-hour period. The law was enacted in the 1990s, and it effectively guarantees that no big-time poker will hit this state (i.e., a WSOP circuit event).

[Shaun]

CBS is poo-pooing internet gambling because 60 minutes is shilling for Viacom or whatever huge conglomerate currently owns the network.

This piece could (won't though) hurt companies like Disney (via ESPN) who are doing very well with the popularity of poker. NBC also has some poker programming. Out of the three major networks, and 4 if you count Fox, only CBS has failed to capitalize on the poker boom.

Actually, HBO did a piece on internet poker on "Real Sports", that naturally, bashed the hell out of it, because they didn't get a piece of the action either. If you want to equate political leanings with this, no one would accuse CBS or HBO of being conservative.

[ChipWrecked]

The IRS will still accept your check, even if it came from profits made gambling on the internet.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]

but that's an entirely different animal than politicians from all 50 states trying to move forward on a practice that so many Americans still find to be morally objectionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's morally objectionable unless it's powerball and run by the government.

[midas]

The story was a complete puff piece and gave a predictable viewpoint geared to the uninformed. A few follow-up questions for 60 minutes II.

-How much money is made by lottery ticket sales?
-How much money did Mississippi make from B&M casinos as a percentage of it's total receipts?
-Why does the main stream media constantly discuss sports betting and publish spreads?

Gambling is a part of the American fabric - regulate and tax it but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

BTW, the New Orleans piece was much more frightening. Is that city a total loss or what?